"Sharing" public space with private businesses

FROM:

Mary Miles (SB #230395)

Attorney at Law for Coalition for Adequate Review

San Francisco, CA 94102

TO:

SFMTA Board of Directors

One S. Van Ness Avenue, 7th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

MTABoard@sfmta.com

DATE: May 3, 2021

PUBLIC COMMENT MTA BOARD AGENDA ITEM 11, MAY 4, 2021, “Shared Spaces"

This is Public Comment opposing approval of Agenda Item 11 before the SFMTA Board of Directors on May 4, 2021, "Shared Spaces" Project proposing permanent closures of streets, lanes, sidewalks, and removing public parking. Please distribute this to all members of the MTA Board and place a copy in applicable files on the Project.

MTA's allegedly "temporary" Project is now proposed as a permanent, illegal closure and privatization of publicly funded street and sidewalk space throughout San Francisco. The Project will charge a minimal fee, renewable for as little as $100 per year, to private businesses to expand on public property, closing access to public streets, eliminating traffic lanes, sidewalk space, and parking. That windfall to private businesses is a fraction of the cost of real estate in San Francisco.

The Project eliminates thousands of parking spaces, since the more than 1,000 proposed private "parklets" each take up two to five or more parking spaces. The ugly, temporary shack-like structures, barriers, furniture, heaters, and other obstructions, also intrude on sidewalk space, making two-way pedestrian traffic complicated and sometimes unsafe, effectively denying access to people in wheelchairs, and other disabled people. 

The Project reduces sidewalk width to six feet or less, interrupted by cross-traffic by business staff and chairs protruding from tables on the sidewalks and in parklets. Neighboring residents and businesses must put up with noise and unsanitary conditions 365 days per year for private open-air bars and restaurants while losing parking and access.

With its huge ongoing deficit only partially alleviated by one-time federal funds, MTA will lose more than $10.6 million per year from this Project due to loss of parking meter revenue. (Staff Report, pp. 7-8.) MTA claims that "reduction in administrative costs in comparison to the temporary program" will "reduce the annual staff cost by $1 million to $2.6 million annually." However, MTA does not explain which of its more than 7,000 staff will be eliminated to accomplish that reduction.

Following are reasons why this Board should not approve the Project.

1. The City has no legal authority to sell or lease public streets and sidewalks to private businesses.

2. Closing public streets to travelers, including those in motor vehicles, is preempted and unconstitutional. (See, e.g., Rumford v. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545.) The Project also plainly conflicts with the California Vehicle Code.

3. The City has not produced any evidence that the affected streets are no longer needed for public use. Privatizing streets so that businesses can expand their private indoor operations onto public street and sidewalk space at public expense is not a valid reason to convert public streets and sidewalks so that businesses can receive windfall profits.

4. The City again violates the Brown Act and CEQA by refusing to make publicly available the supporting documents, including the CEQA "Addendum" that it claims finds no impacts from the Project. That document is NOT available on the Planning Department's web site, as the Agenda falsely states, or on the agenda, or on the MTA's web site. This Board may not legally proceed without providing the public that document, since it is essential to understand the Board's deliberations on the Project and to meaningfully comment on CEQA issues.

5. MTA fails to account for the cumulative impacts of removing thousands of parking spaces for its other Projects, including its ongoing "temporary emergency" projects, and its long-term projects that have removed parking. The same is true of the cumulative impacts of street closures and lane reductions under claims of covid "emergencies."

6. The entire Project and its "permitting" by different City agencies has been conducted without any public process, even though the Project has usurped thousands of parking spaces and public street and sidewalk spaces. No public oversight or input has been allowed on the ugly appearance of many of the shabby, private "parklet" spaces that do not conform to codes. Nor has City analyzed the Project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on local residents and businesses left out of the private parklet windfall.

7. Reducing sidewalk sizes to 6-feet wide with forced winding around tables, chairs and other obstacles is contrary to pedestrian access and safety, impedes two-way pedestrian traffic, and the space necessary for disabled users in wheelchairs, people with dogs, strollers, and other sidewalk users. It is plainly contrary to the ADA and makes access more difficult for people in wheelchairs, blind, and otherwise disabled people on the proposed privatized streets and sidewalks.

8. Blocking through traffic obstructs access by emergency vehicles, including police, ambulance, and fire vehicles.

9. City's rhetoric is ludicrous that closing and privatizing public streets and sidewalks, creating congestion on affected and nearby streets, removing parking, and reducing sidewalk access "upholds" its "Transit First policy, Vision Zero, and Climate Action Plan."

Since MTA’s Project and its claimed non-existent and non-available "addendum" are illegal and unconstitutional, the Project must be rejected.

Mary Miles

Rob's comment:

On the other hand, the many parklets give city restaurants a chance to survive during the pandemic recession. The city also likes parklets because they take away street parking for those wicked motor vehicles. 

There are 500,000 motor vehicles registered in San Francisco, which has a population of 883,000.

From the Examiner: Disability advocates fear Shared Spaces could create an ‘obstacle course’ on city sidewalks